The answer came back fairly quickly: about 4 people were hurt, and the only person dead was the shooter. A WOMAN.
"It's very unusual for a woman to be involved in something like this," the reporters calmly nattered to one another, "the only other case, really, is in San Bernadino, where a woman joined a man in..." blowing away a bunch of kind hard-working medical workers.
So? Why did SHE do it?
Depending on which real news or "fake news" or biased news you saw, the answer, in bold headlines was a "VEGAN ACTIVIST," a "VEGAN BODYBUILDER" or "WOMAN WHO WAS SEEN AT A PISTOL RANGE THE DAY BEFORE" or, "MUSLIM EXTREMIST." But mostly, it was ewwww, a VEGAN (they are all craaaaaayzeeee) and one who seemed to care about animal rights (the snowwwwww flaaaaaaaaaake.)
Oh yes. And she had a gripe against YOUTUBE.
How could THAT be? YOUTUBE is owned by GOOGLE. It does lovely things like give you camcorder bootlegs of everybody's rock concert. It gives you free jukeboxes of stolen music. It invades privacy and runs pictures of anyone and everyone, from ordinary people shopping to an actress in a wheelchair trying to get through an airport. It offers copyrighted movies and TV shows. It's one of the most lawless websites on the Internet, except that it doesn't allow PORN. (There are other sites, happily, for that).
YOUTUBE also allows people to offer commercials for bootlegs they'd rather SELL than give away for penny royalties, and YOUTUBE allows various sex workers to post images of themselves with their contact information for...heh heh heh heh heh...CONTACT.
DAMN. With all this happy stuff going on, SOMEBODY tried to ruin the FUN.
WHO? A woman who was just a few days shy of her 39th birthday. What, Jack Benny syndrome? She was so bent about not making money and being restricted on YouTube she wounded a few ordinary workers in an office and then blew herself away?
Anyone who tries to kill others, and then kills herself, has to be insane, but it's interesting on how the media portrays THIS woman's insanity.
She's insane because she's against the degradation of women and she's insane because she loves animals. Here's CBS talking about her BIZARRE videos which signal an unhinged mind:
They got two of the three in my headline, didn't they?
They didn't dare say VIOLENT MUSLIM (but the name itself tells you that).
CBS wants you to know that a sign of killer instability is: protesting against fake tits, being a vegan, and caring about animals.
Those are your clues.
She wasn't like that miserable bastard in Florida who was bullying kids, selling knives, being a crazed loner, and having a need to own an automatic weapon (which his foster parents thought was just lovely.)
No, this woman's tell-tale signs of insanity were a) not thinking that women need breast augmentation or that women should be sexualized, b) knowing that eating meat takes more resources than eating grains, c) also knowing that red meat is a health risk, and d) that maybe animals should not be hunted to extinction, skinned alive, or abused.
CBS is telling you all to be on the look-out for feminists and vegans.
CBS also offered a "NO COMMENT" from YouTube:
Yes, CBS raised a point most people don't know, which is that people often try to make a living via YouTube. BUT...
YouTube has yet to offer documentation on their dialogue with this woman.
YouTube is a division of Google, and Google is notorious for being cold and robotic, NEVER offering a phone number for support, NEVER making contact with people who have problems.
I know that very well. For example, I wanted to help my friend Julie Newmar, and get a few offensive videos removed. I had to repeatedly spend hours sifting through hoops and filling out forms, and never got anywhere. I got form letters. I replied to the form letters, "Do you NOT understand "intellectual property" issues? Ebay does. We have no problem at eBay. Why are we having problems here? Please explain what you need."
Form letter: FILL IN THE FORM FOR COPYRIGHT ABUSE. Followed by: YOUR ISSUE IS NOT COPYRIGHT ABUSE. WE CAN NOT REMOVE THE YOUTUBE VIDEO.
So, did this woman encounter THAT shit?
How much of it? She was obviously a bit bonkers to begin with, maybe hotheaded (ooh, Muslim you know) but how much lack of communication was involved here?
Nowhere on YouTube videos do you see a note: This Video is Being Monetized. The site seems to be a free-for-all where gruesome videos of accidents, of Sharon Tate, of autopsies, etc. can be shown for entertainment. Did this woman know that this stuff was legal but NOT being monetized?
The root cause was apparently her frustration and increasing paranoia and rage over her "messages" not getting through, and not getting through for MONEY. Let's remember that whatever people do on the Internet, most of them expect to be paid. If they run a bootleg website (and YouTube owned by Google owns the world's biggest chain of illegal-action blogs called BLOGSPOT) they expect the Paypal "tip jar" to be filled, or money to come in with links connected to outfits like Rapidgator.
This woman was seeing LESS traffic on her YOUTUBE channel.
She was NOT seeing any money. She mentioned this on her website.
YOUTUBE sends out a mixed message. You can steal stuff and post it. You can post "disturbing" footage, and violent scenes from movies. You can post a crock-of-shit "fair use" excuse for taking the most grotesque scenes from horror movies, or the worst knock outs in UFC fights, and, indeed, get "MONETIZATION" for it.
Most corporations will not fight YouTubers who file a "counter-claim," and of course YouTube will not even listen when someone complains about their image or property being used without consent. If it doesn't rigidly involve COPYRIGHT they don't want to hear about it. And unlike EBAY, who at least have an 800 number and some morons answering the phone, there is no way to contact a human at YouTube. This woman found the wrong way.
It took a murderous maniac to expose part of YouTube's corporate attitude of not caring to explain procedures or having staff to respond. They figured they're like the Scientologists and others (including Google itself) that can hide their employees behind security, not give out a phone number, and not respond to anyone. Also, the Internet giants tend to think they should keep their billions, and not spend much on having a few extra staffers to handle problems efficiently. What if this woman had gotten a phone number, and gotten somebody to explain YouTube's monetization policy? That disturbing animal cruelty videos aren't going to get a placement ad from a fur coat company or a hamburger chain?
Most people who have a YouTube channel (yes, I do) can be baffled by the hot and cold running rules, how illegal things can be allowed unless a copyright owner jumps through a bunch of hoops and REALLY protests with a takedown, and how sometimes something uploaded can actually be removed for violations of Terms of Service while something just as bad remains.
The woman who decided not to see her 39th birthday, and may have figured she had killed at least several YouTube employees, had the paranoid notion that YouTube was somehow refusing to monetize her items out of a vendetta of some kind.
In truth, YouTube is a business. They make money by running ads on items uploaded. If an uploader WANTS to, the uploader can set up a bank account, supply credentials, and "monetize" the channel. It means that YouTube shares ad revenue with the uploader.
The problem is that YouTube has gotten criticism for running ads on inappropriate items. The people who sell Fig Newtons or Ivory Soap do not want to be boycotted because YouTube ran their ads on a YouTube video featuring a stripper (even one that doesn't strip all the way), or a political rant, or a controversial topic of any kind.
YouTube also has an obligation, of some kind, to warn viewers that something might be disturbing, and especially to block items from people under 18, the same way R-rated movies do.
Here, the woman posted very disturbing images of animals being killed for fur or meat.
Animal rights people are often frustrated by the very nature of their issue. NOBODY wants to know how pigs are slaughtered, or how chickens are penned up with their beaks cut off, or how Asians eat dogs or how some people in backward countries skin creatures alive. People, even NICE people, get uncomfortable and downright angry if they are even subjected to a sorrowful ASPCA add on TV with Sarah McLachlan music playing.
YouTube correctly placed restrictions on the content. YouTube also protected itself by denying monetization on graphic, disgusting images that were meant to be educational, but that the Oreo people and the Heineken people wouldn't want associated with their brands.
In the end, several people were nearly killed, thousands were traumatized, and an eccentric went over the line and ended up killing herself. She is no longer around for that anti-fur march, or to donate to a campaign to force certain countries to stop killing whales or seals. She did not volunteer, or work for a for-profit animal rights group that could've have channeled her passions and her zeal.
She is now remembered and reviled as the VEGAN CRACKPOT, the VIOLENT MUSLIM, or the RADICAL BITCH who was a disgrace to the women's movement. And YouTube gets sympathy for "doing its best" in handling a huge and hugely profitable site that, like BLOGSPOT, contains a lot of transgressions of taste and law.
No comments:
Post a Comment